Coroners' verdicts

[dudley_rush]

Does anyone known when the British coroners' verdict of "Murder by person or persons unknown" was replaced by that of "Unlawful killing", and the reason why?

[Lillabet]

I don't know precisely when but the two main reason why are that:

1 Unlawful killing didn't replace one possible verdict it replaced two.As well as 'murder by person or persons unknown' juries in coroners courts had the alternative verdict of 'murder by X'. If the latter verdict was given the police had to charge that person. This regardless of whether they felt that they wanted to investigate other lines of enquiry. It's not a verdict that was given often. The most famous being the case of Lord Lucan who was named in this way. But basically it could lead to the coroner's court forcing the hand of the police and this was not seen as a good thing.

2, Which is the main reason. There is more than one way of killing someone that is against the law. As well as murder you have manslaughter (reckless manslaughter, illegal act manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter etc) and causing death by dangerous driving assisted suicide and probably another couple. Previously there wasn't a verdict that neatly described illegally causing death in any way other than murder. It meant coroner's courts were having to distinguish between all these different types of killing. When in fact that too really falls to the more detailed police investigation...

It was part of simplifying the whole system and updating verdicts. We now have the verdict of Suicide. Whereas before the verdict was 'Suicide whilst the balance of his / her mind was disturbed' which could be upsetting for relatives as you are basically ascribing mental illness to the person. When in some cases, suicide might be a decision that was taken very calmly and rationally - as in the cases of people who wish to take their own lives when certain illnesses become unbearable.

[Lillabet]

Actually I just remembered I do know when(ish) The Coroner's Rules 1984 set out new procedures. These included limiting the use of juries. This is significant as the UK system of criminal law is founded on 'trial by one's peers' which translates into a jury system. Without a jury in the coroners court [now they are still used but for certain categories only - deaths in police custody being one] the system could not really be at all accusatory. It had to be simply investigative.

Then there was the Coroners' Act 1988 which formalised a lot of changes that had taken place previously.

One of these documents would have your answer.

[dudley_rush]

Thank you very much for your help.

[Peter Pedant]

No its before 1975

The 'reason' was that coroners are meant to give the cause of death, where how but at the time of the change "they" said that who by was not a suitable function for a coroner.....

it was done by a change in the Coroners' rules - rather unpopular with coroners I seem to remember -

there is a coroners society: you could ring and ask them.....

 

PP